Most Sandbagged Climbing Areas in America

Steve McGeewrote:

lol. True. But I also remember that 5.8 was hard and very tiring, because it was an offwidth or chimney a lot of the time. 

Or it was terrifying because it was a slab put up on lead with a quite long way between bolts.

I've been surprised to see in MP how routes I did in the 90's have two numbers added to them now. My point about grade inflation is that it used to be OK to be intimidated by 5.10, yet after over-bolted overhanging jug hauls graded 5.10 were everywhere to be found, it's like nobody could stomach the idea that a 5.8 offwidth would be beyond their capability. "It must be harder than this!"

What if Adam Ondra could only climb 5.12? And almost everyone on MP now would be lucky to get a 5.10 done this year (like 30 years ago)?

This is actually a bit of a myth. Slabs and weird size cracks feel hard because very few people have actual experience on them. However, many “steeper” hard routes from the late 80s and early 90s have, in fact, been downgraded. For example, see Steep Climb Named Desire, Slice of Life and Scarface…all three lost the .14- grade. Many hard boulders suffered the same fate. 

Frank Steinwrote:

This is actually a bit of a myth. Slabs and weird size cracks feel hard because very few people have actual experience on them. However, many “steeper” hard routes from the late 80s and early 90s have, in fact, been downgraded. For example, see Steep Climb Named Desire, Slice of Life and Scarface…all three lost the .14- grade. Many hard boulders suffered the same fate. 

From my perspective this proves my point. A real era of grade inflation chasing harder grades. Perhaps before sport climbing one's ego would be stroked by the few who also would climb the route recognizing the FA thought it was relatively 'easy'.

Based on some of the areas I have climbed- here's my personal scale. 

Very Sandbagged 

Index (most sandbagged in the 5.11-5.12 Sport range, generally 2-3 grades off... sometimes more, although normal graded climbs do exist and are becoming more common)

Slightly Sandbagged

Yosemite (5.11 felt pretty fair, but those long 5.8-10 corners sure felt hard!)

Joshua Tree (The trad climbing felt pretty fair, maybe a tad stiff below 5.8 but the moderate bouldering felt pretty hard to me)

Most Fair

Squamish Rope Climbing (sometimes very soft under 5.10, but after 5.11- its starts to even out and is comparable with Yos)

Leavenworth, WA (The bouldering seems to be pretty middle ground to me up to V7 anyways)

Slightly Soft

Indian Creek (5.10 and 11- are generally pretty soft, after that it gets fair)

Joe's Valley (Definitely easier for the grade but not laughably so)

Red Rock

Very Soft

Moe's Valley (felt like gym ratings)

San Rafael Swell slab climbs, not necessarily in difficulty but in terror (except for 1000' of Fun)

Independence Pass bouldering feels stiff at least relative to other CO bouldering areas (which I know is often called soft)

Not really contributing but, I've only climbed in the south (TAG region). How do y'all feel about the grades here? I've heard we're relatively sandbagged. I have no idea though, farthest I've climbed was WV and it felt similar. 

Hangdog Hankwrote:

Based on some of the areas I have climbed- here's my personal scale. 

Very Sandbagged 

Index (most sandbagged in the 5.11-5.12 Sport range, generally 2-3 grades off... sometimes more, although normal graded climbs do exist and are becoming more common)

Slightly Sandbagged

Yosemite (5.11 felt pretty fair, but those long 5.8-10 corners sure felt hard!)

Joshua Tree (The trad climbing felt pretty fair, maybe a tad stiff below 5.8 but the moderate bouldering felt pretty hard to me)

Most Fair

Squamish Rope Climbing (sometimes very soft under 5.10, but after 5.11- its starts to even out and is comparable with Yos)

Leavenworth, WA (The bouldering seems to be pretty middle ground to me up to V7 anyways)

Slightly Soft

Indian Creek (5.10 and 11- are generally pretty soft, after that it gets fair)

Joe's Valley (Definitely easier for the grade but not laughably so)

Red Rock

Very Soft

Moe's Valley (felt like gym ratings)

So you think Granite is hard and Sandstone is soft then?

Granite (Josh, CoR) always feels stiffer to me than sandstone (RRG, Moab)

Camdon Kaywrote:

Granite (Josh, CoR) always feels stiffer to me than sandstone (RRG, Moab)

That’s cause RRG and Moab are soft 

Can anyone name a sandbagged sandstone area (EDIT: for roped climbing)? NRG is only stout relative to other sandstone - it's still pretty soft relative to granite IMO. 

I think sandbagged is often used to mean 'unintuitive', which is generally more apt to describe granite than sandstone. I suspect that it's hard for sandstone to be sandbagged due to its tendency to form positive, easy to use features, which, combined with its high friction coefficient means you can generally plop a hand/foot down and go without worrying much about sequence, technique, or tension.

MattHwrote:

Can anyone name a sandbagged sandstone area? NRG is only stout relative to other sandstone - it's still pretty soft relative to granite IMO. 

I think sandbagged is often used to mean 'unintuitive', which is generally more apt to describe granite than sandstone, so I suspect that it's hard for sandstone to be sandbagged due to its tendency to form positive, easy to use features (which, combined with its high friction coefficient means you can generally plop a hand/foot down and go without worrying much about technique/tension). 

I agree with this. I’ve always thought one of the main reasons people find the NRG to be more sandbagged than the RRG is because the beta at the Red tends to be more straight forward whereas the New has more beta refining to get routes to feel in my experience. It seems to take a few more goes at the New to get a route to feel the same grade at the Red.

As far as the rest of your post goes, seems like nonsense to say that sandstone can’t be sandbagged because it has more “easy to use” features (and better friction????). People are the ones who determine grades and, in turn, sandbags…not the rock features. In other words a really hard, really featured sandstone route could still easily be sandbagged depending on how people are grading it. Granted, this is more apparent to in boulders in my experience. Trent’s mom (the boulder at Joes) comes to mind as a sandbagged sandstone climb, for example. 

MattHwrote:

Can anyone name a sandbagged sandstone area?

Font?

MattHwrote:

Can anyone name a sandbagged sandstone area? NRG is only stout relative to other sandstone - it's still pretty soft relative to granite IMO. 

I could in the SE, but most are off the radar. We developed an area in TN ~25 years ago (just f**king damn) where the (snide) agreement going in was that all climbs were soft and the hardest possible was 5.9+, and you should give a climb the lowest rating you could without bursting out laughing. Anything higher was just ego stroking. But after a while, well, someone would do something that you couldn’t give a 9+ without laughing, so then you had 9++. And then 9+++. And then it just got ridiculous, but I think a bunch of those climbs still retain the original ratings, not that anyone climbs there much, because we were also resistant to bolting much of anything.

Lower grades in the 5.7-5.8 range can be sandbagged, mostly because guys like Rob and Forest were so dialed on southern sandstone that they‘d on sight a new route and the attitude would be, ‘Ah, not too hard. Whatta think, 5.8?” from guys on sighting 11 in the 80s with no clear idea what 5.8 was, it just was easier than their usual stuff.

MattHwrote:

Can anyone name a sandbagged sandstone area? NRG is only stout relative to other sandstone - it's still pretty soft relative to granite IMO. 

I think sandbagged is often used to mean 'unintuitive', which is generally more apt to describe granite than sandstone. I suspect that it's hard for sandstone to be sandbagged due to its tendency to form positive, easy to use features, which, combined with its high friction coefficient means you can generally plop a hand/foot down and go without worrying much about sequence, technique, or tension.

The black hole in Morrison has some world class sandbags.  Same with HP 40.  Sandstone just tends to be more obvious in the beta and more suited to gym climbers.  Granite has more nuance for quality projecting

MattHwrote:

I think sandbagged is often used to mean 'unintuitive', which is generally more apt to describe granite than sandstone. 

I disagree with this - 

in my 20 years climbing, I’ve almost entirely climbed on CA granite. I agree that granite can tend to be very subtle and cryptic in some areas, but I’ve also experienced a big spread in grade standards across granite that’s very similar in style.. Even when the era in time is similar.

Needles 11’s are nails, cal dome 10’s are religious experiences, and anything price or Hudon/jones did around Tahoe are a couple letters stiff cause they were ahead of the curve.

I feel like this topic gets more predictable looking at first ascentionist than area, but that’s ultimately what shapes an area to begin with.

This thread should be - “what old guys were the biggest sandbaggers and why were their dicks so huge?” 

almostradwrote:

I disagree with this - 

in my 20 years climbing, I’ve almost entirely climbed on CA granite. I agree that granite can tend to be very subtle and cryptic in some areas, but I’ve also experienced a big spread in grade standards across granite that’s very similar in style.. Even when the era in time is similar.

Needles 11’s are nails, cal dome 10’s are religious experiences, and anything price or Hudon/jones did around Tahoe are a couple letters stiff cause they were ahead of the curve.

I feel like this topic gets more predictable looking at first ascentionist than area, but that’s ultimately what shapes an area to begin with.

This thread should be - “what old guys were the biggest sandbaggers and why were their dicks so huge?” 

You said a lot of shit about granite that’s probably true, but Matt’s post was as much about sandstone as it was about granite. I believe his point was comparing granite to sandstone…not granite to different granite. The same things you said about granite also apply to sandstone areas. 

But I also agree with your last point that people create sandbags, not the type of rock. If you climb and know the history of certain crags at the RRG you understand what a Porter Jerrard “girlfriend” route is and why they are sandbagged. 

What I heard was that I’m right, and I’m also sometimes right about sandstone too.

Carry on 

almostradwrote:

What I heard was that I’m right, and I’m also sometimes right about sandstone too.

Carry on 

You could do it that way...or find the crag with a disproportionate number of 5.9s and ##.d routes - FAists who didn’t want their route downgraded. Then weight the routes by year, the older it is the more likely it’s sandbagged by today’s standards. Not because everything is softer now, but because everything was compressed into fewer grades the farther back you go. https://vidmate.onl/  

Sugarloaf CA has some serious sandbags IMO.

Everything east of the  Mississippi is sandbagged until about 11d. Then above that, way softer than out west or Europe.